Nextdoor sounds like it might be cool, but I don't know. It makes you put in a lot of information about yourself, including real name, real address, real email address, before asking for a credit card #, phone #, or to send you a post card and wait 3-5 days to verify your identify and before this is completed, you can't browse the site.
"I'm not saying that if you sort investors by benevolence you've also sorted them by returns, but rather that if you do a scatterplot with benevolence on the x axis and returns on the y, you'd see a clear upward trend." PG/YC, have you tested this hypothesis? Precision would be difficult, but a back of the envelope attempt could be interesting and perhaps reveal unexpected correlations.
I didn't say that he was coming from a place of bigotry, in fact I said that he almost certainly wasn't. This isn't a technicality, it is explicit in the text of my comment. What I did was ask a question, which he never answered and I'll now ask you: can you understand why to some people particularly sensitive to anti-Jewish prejudice, this would make them a little bit uneasy? Please don't project a narrative we both disagree with onto me and the question and do me the courtesy of simply answering it.
You haven't done me the courtesy of answering my direct questions, which is a shame. Nonetheless, I'll answer yours. The term blockade itself without a modifier seems like the best term for it without going into details (you modified it twice in less than accurate ways: 1) labeling it as Israel's without mention Egypt's role in it and 2) calling it complete).
The restrictions on shipments of goods into and out of Gaza vary pretty regularly, which is the main reason I found that term to be an instance of editorializing rather than informing.
Since what can cross into and out of Gaza changes so frequently, is it only sometimes a complete blockade? When massive shipments are allowed in, would the blockade have exited its status as a "complete" blockade? Then what level of restriction needs to be met before it resumes its status as a "complete" blockade?
If you aren't aware of the varying policies, exceptions, and pretty regular massive shipments of goods allowed during the blockade, you should be able to find plenty of instances with minimal Googling.
Note that I'm not calling it a "mild blockade" or a "partial blockade" or anything like that and I might even call it a "restrictive blockade" or even "very restrictive blockade." I don't seek to minimize the blockade, just to accurately represent it.
I didn't "connect what you wrote with anti-semitism." I asked if you can understand how something you said could make some people uneasy because it resembles a narrative frequently used to malign them. You "just.." "won't respond to that," which is a shame.
While it might be "pretty useful to know," about the blockade, you weren't helpfully stating a fact that someone might not know in order to be "useful." Given the blockade's prominent role in the article (the word "blockade" is in the title and it occurs 3 other times throughout the article), you weren't informing anybody; you were editorializing. Why didn't you mention Egypt's role in the blockade in your comment, singling out Israel as the lone offender?
If someone were relying on your comment to learn about the situation as you seem to be suggesting was your intent, they would be under-informed about the major actors in the situation and perhaps misinformed about the nature and severity of the blockade. Your use of the term "complete" to describe the blockade ranges from subjective to incorrect, depending on one's perspective.
Is the conversation we're having ideal for HN? I don't think so, but I think it is the inevitable consequence of "talking about politics." Talking about politics is quite different than merely informing people of facts requisite for understanding a given situation, despite your attempts to conflate the two.
Without discussing politics, people with widely varying perspectives on Gaza understand that the present reality of life in Gaza poses extra challenges for those engaged in the inherently challenging pursuit of starting a startup.
To understand why "talking about politics" is harmful on this site, let's review this excerpt from your post:
"if you are not allowed to mention Israel's complete blockade of the Gaza Strip"
Hacker News isn't a good place for me to point out my many disagreements with your analysis, but to illustrate my point, I'll point out that: 1) the blockade isn't "complete," 2) Egypt also shares a border with Gaza and enforces a blockade, and 3) that making a claim that you're "not allowed to mention Israel's ____" is either an instance of, or (very probably) merely resembles, bigoted, anti-Jewish narratives about Jewish control of speech, the press, etc. I assume it just bears resemblance to bigotry, but can you understand why to some people particularly sensitive to anti-Jewish prejudice, this would make them a little bit uneasy?
"Why are talking about politics so bad?"
It isn't bad to talk about politics, but based on my feedback, do you see why your comments above lead to off-topic discussions for Hacker News?
You know what really offends me, though? That damn auto-playing ad on the article!
I'm not trying to be incendiary and I'm left wondering why I'm receiving the downvotes. PG has made public statements pertaining to this issue but I'm not sure I understand his point of view. I was simply seeking clarification.
"Bush attended public schools in Midland, Texas until the family moved to Houston after he completed seventh grade. He then went to The Kinkaid School, a prep school in Houston, for two years."
Does anybody know where Siri gets its local search results from? The independent version of the app has been pulled from the App Store, and the only "answers" I can find to my question online are low quality. If they somehow manage to produce good results, they'll stand with Google Places as one of only two generally reliable local search resources.
If somebody has some insight on this, and they'd be willing to discuss it in greater detail or at greater length than would be suitable in an HN post, please contact me (see my profile).
How do you handle situations in which you can't tell if someone is legitimately undergoing hyper-growth or committing fraud? In a prior startup, I had my funds held indefinitely by PayPal and 3 separate merchant banks because our rapid growth made them suspect us of fraud or perhaps that our business was just too risky because our numbers were changing so rapidly. Our ultimate solution was to engage a merchant bank that specialized in sight-unseen, no swipe/no sig transactions that we could meet with face-to-face.
I wrote "This "article" is misleading. The video which this link-bait inaccurately describes states "they visited Steve Jobs just to meet him because he was a hero of theirs and they said to John Doerr after the meeting 'Why can't he be our CEO?'" (The section of the video pertaining to the CEO hiring starts around the 24 minute mark.)
The video makes it seem as if that question was basically a joke and also that it wasn't ever directly posed to Steve Jobs. I resent being lied to by the puff piece, but it is interesting to think about how such an outcome would have changed things (bmelton's thoughts being an example)." when a slightly LESS misleading version of this submission was posted some months back.
I'm disappointed to see this has received 20 upvotes at HN. It has no citations, and it is obviously full of bunk.
This "article" is misleading. The video which this link-bait inaccurately describes states "they visited Steve Jobs just to meet him because he was a hero of theirs and they said to John Doerr after the meeting 'Why can't he be our CEO?'" (The section of the video pertaining to the CEO hiring starts around the 24 minute mark.)
The video makes it seem as if that question was basically a joke and also that it wasn't ever directly posed to Steve Jobs. I resent being lied to by the puff piece, but it is interesting to think about how such an outcome would have changed things (bmelton's thoughts being an example).
When was this fact-based debating era?